Wednesday, 30 August 2017

After the publication of an opinion piece in this morning's Press (no prizes who came up with the headline), I've jotted down a few more thoughts in response to some of the other stories that have been published in recent times.

Some
question whether the logic applied to stadiums (and the outcome) means that
other publicly-funded facilities like infrastructure (sewerage, roading, etc),
libraries, museums, churches, etc, would also fail a benefit-cost test and
therefore shouldn’t be funded. I would argue that critical infrastructure
projects have higher benefit to local residents than a sports facility by simple
virtue of the fact that these projects are necessities – people who live
without sewerage and adequate roading will know what an inconvenience it is not
to have them. The value of such projects is high – and so there can be a higher
cost attached to them for the projects to make economic sense. For things like
museums and libraries, the same logic applies. What is the benefit of a library
to a local populace? If people value the amenity, then there is a cost that is
potentially commensurate with that value and it can be considered to pass the benefit-cost test if the cost is less than the benefit.

A
key difference between infrastructure projects as well as amenities like
libraries, museums, etc and sports facilities is that those who advocate for the importance
of “cultural” amenities often don’t tie the value of the amenity to the (potential)
impact resulting from spending from visitors to the city – which is a staple (and sizeable) component of advocacy
documents produced routinely for sports facilities. A supermarket generates visitor spending. Does that mean supermarkets should be publicly funded?

The
issue I have is not that Christchurch doesn’t need a new stadium – it is rather
that public money from local, regional and central government is being poured
into something that may end up costing more over time than the benefits
accruing from the facility to the local population.

There
is no question that Christchurch needs a sporting/events facility. The
temporary facility in operation since 2011 hasn’t prevented some acts (Bruce
Springsteen, for one) from coming to Christchurch. People still watch rugby at
the temporary facility. Has the Christchurch economy collapsed in the absence
of events that they could have hosted? No. The local population gets on with
things. You can’t miss what you never had. And sport in Christchurch continues
to be played – a testament to the “can do” resilience of sport.

Who
should be responsible for funding the construction of a new facility, and how
big should it be? The CCC has said that a $253 million facility is
insufficient. So they instead advocate for a facility costing just under twice
that price while knowing that there’ll be an almost $250 million shortfall –
and saying that central government should pay the difference.

What
is wrong with an open air “provincial stadium” that seats 17,500 people (with
temporary seats added it will increase in capacity)? Surely it is likely to be
better utilised locally than a facility that seats 25,000? And who says a roof
is a "must have" for stadiums in this country? There’s only one roofed stadium in New Zealand –
so the sample size from which to draw conclusions is pretty small. We’ve had
outdoor facilities for as long as we’ve been a nation. Do we really need a “one
size fits all” solution in the form of an expensive roofed facility that can “do
it all”?

Here’s
an idea. Why not build an affordable smaller outdoor facility for sport – and also build
a covered arena-type facility (like Auckland’s Spark Arena) for the indoor
aspects like concerts, trade shows, beer fests etc? It would probably be quite
a bit cheaper to do things this way – it would almost certainly cost less than
$496 million.[1]
Plus, you get two facilities for less than the price of one – and facilities
that are arguably better suited to their purposes than a single facility. Sport
would get an intimate venue that is likely to be better utilised (from the
point of view of having near-full capacities) and have more atmosphere (which
is what spectators at an event often value) than a much larger (and less
utilised) venue. An indoor arena would be tailored for concerts, trade shows,
etc without the complexity of a larger facility with a removable turf. For those that argue that a new indoor arena is unnecessary as the Horncastle Arena already exists for that purpose, then that's fine - more money saved!

A small stadium is a stupid
idea, you say – it immediately rules out All Blacks tests. But how often does
an All Blacks test occur in a city? And when it does, to what extent does the
local population actually benefit? (Sounds like a future research project - might keep me busy over summer!) The Crusaders and Canterbury rugby will
still play there every season – which is arguably more important to
Christchurch residents than an All Blacks test every two years. And the vast
majority of the proposed event calendar in a new facility are locally-oriented.
Surely this means that a locally-oriented facility makes sense from an
operational perspective?

In
the wash up, the true benefit and value of a stadium to a city is largely the
value that people in a city place on having it. If an All Blacks test is
something than Christchurch residents value above all else, then by all means Christchurch
residents (via rates) should fund the construction of a facility to host this
type of event. The benefit will justify the cost.

Should
central government fund any shortfall? Only if having a Christchurch facility
makes the rest of the country demonstrably better off. Is this likely to be the
case? If Christchurch is competing with other cities for the same events, then
the argument is likely to be no. It is akin to taking money off one city and
giving it to another.

[1] A crude back of the envelope calculation: Westpac Stadium and
Spark Arena were built at twice the cost, it would come to $432 million.